4 ms·

The book does have some discussion of labor, but essentially alleges that the US labor movement is dead and new ways of thinking about the problem will be neede

The book does have some discussion of labor, but essentially alleges that the US labor movement is dead and new ways of thinking about the problem will be needed to wrestle with the problems of labor in the modern environment. I tend to agree, although the effort to recast employers as governments feels like a pretty transparent play to engage small-government advocates with the problems labor wants to talk about.

Animats 7y ago
It does look like an attempt to hammer labor theory into something that pushes the right buttons in modern academia. What employers today seem to want is a workforce which is available and disposable. "Just in time" employees. This is not like being a government. It's being the dominant player in a market. Which, in some ways, is worse. It's power without responsibility. Employers don't want to be bothered with worker control. Classically, this is Marx's "reserve army of labor".[1] This is why homelessness is useful to business - it's a reminder that, no matter how bad a job is, there's worse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour
- bobwaycott 7y ago
  > What employers today seem to want is a workforce which is available and disposable. As opposed to a past period when they wanted a workforce that wasn’t available and disposable? I’m glad you mentioned Marx, because he was calling that out as primary desirable criteria for labor pools in general. A constantly available reserve army of labor and disposable workers is exactly what capital depends on to keep labor costs low. Hence the fundamental need for labor to organize and cooperate to counter the inexorable push of wages to zero (or its subsistence equivalent), or unemployment. I’ll admit I’m probably unnecessarily nitpicking you saying, “employers today”, though. I don’t think I’m voicing a fundamental disagreement here. I do, however, really like your phrasing of JIT employees.

Animats 7y ago

It does look like an attempt to hammer labor theory into something that pushes the right buttons in modern academia. What employers today seem to want is a workforce which is available and disposable. "Just in time" employees. This is not like being a government. It's being the dominant player in a market. Which, in some ways, is worse. It's power without responsibility. Employers don't want to be bothered with worker control. Classically, this is Marx's "reserve army of labor".[1] This is why homelessness is useful to business - it's a reminder that, no matter how bad a job is, there's worse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour

bobwaycott 7y ago
> What employers today seem to want is a workforce which is available and disposable. As opposed to a past period when they wanted a workforce that wasn’t available and disposable? I’m glad you mentioned Marx, because he was calling that out as primary desirable criteria for labor pools in general. A constantly available reserve army of labor and disposable workers is exactly what capital depends on to keep labor costs low. Hence the fundamental need for labor to organize and cooperate to counter the inexorable push of wages to zero (or its subsistence equivalent), or unemployment. I’ll admit I’m probably unnecessarily nitpicking you saying, “employers today”, though. I don’t think I’m voicing a fundamental disagreement here. I do, however, really like your phrasing of JIT employees.